A. Arulanandam vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 483 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The amendment to Regulation 7(2)(a) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 applies retrospectively, so that a penalty imposed for non-disclosure of trades under the unamended provision cannot stand where the controversy is covered by the Tribunal's earlier decision in Sudhir Bapusaheb Devkar v. SEBI, which held that retrospective application.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision: 08.06.2023
Misc. Application No. 645 of 2023 And Appeal No. 483 of 2023
A. Arulanandam 5/756, 16 KCC Nagar, Backside Mullaivedan Nagar, SIPCOT, Hosur, Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu- 635 126, India ...Appellant
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400 051 ...Respondent
CS Rahul Sahasrabuddhe for the Appellant.
Mr. Manish Chhangani, Advocate with Ms. Samreen Fatima and Mr. Sumit Yadav, Advocates i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.
CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member
Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)
1.
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in the
filing of the appeal is condoned. The application is allowed.
2. The Adjudicating Officer has passed an order imposing a
penalty of Rs.1 lakh for non-disclosure of the trades executed by 2 the appellants which was found to be in violation of
Regulations 7(2)(a) of the Securities and Exchange Board of
India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015
(hereinafter referred to as 'PIT Regulations').
3. In Appeal No.654 of 2022, Sudhir Bapusaheb Devkar v.
SEBI decided on 10th October, 2022 this Tribunal held that
amendment in Regulation 7(2)(a) of the PIT Regulations would
apply retrospectively.
4. The controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely
covered by the decision of this Tribunal. In view of the
aforesaid, the impugned order is quashed. The appeal is allowed
with no order as to costs.
5. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary
on behalf of the bench and all concerned parties are directed to
act on the digitally signed copy of this order. Certified copy of
this order is also available from the Registry on payment of
usual charges.
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Ms. Meera Swarup PRERNA Digitally signed Technical Member 08.06.2023 by PRERNA MANISH MANISH KHARE PK Date: 2023.06.09 KHARE 10:45:53 +05'30'
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free